Election 2009?

[dapaterson]

Peripheral question:  With the jungle drums beating an election rhythm, why has Robert Fowler chosen now to break his silence with the media (albeit with hand-picked media only)?  The man is nothing if not a creature of political Ottawa; why come out now?  What is is attempting to influence?

Games within games...

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is a suggestion that the Conservatives will try to exploit Canadians’ ignorance:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-to-stoke-fear-of-opposition-coalition/article1279929/

I suspect Prof. Flanagan is right: this will be (another) election fought on fear and loathing rather than issues. There are no issues. The economy is recovering, slowly and joblessly, for now. It requires careful, prudent management. Prince Michael is promising a faster recovery without tax increases; that’s easy to do; Chrétien/Martin did it by downloading their deficit to AB, BC and ON. Harper has promised not to download Canada’s problems to the provinces; he also promised, back in 2006, not to call an election before 19 Oct 09.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, is Don Martin’s take on one possible outcome of a fall election:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/09/don-martin-tories-to-warn-of-second-coalition.aspx

Don Martin: Tories to warn of second coalition

September 09, 2009

Now that Iggy is no longer iffy in his official government opposition, the prospect of parliamentary elections becoming the corporate equivalent of an annual general meeting is no longer in much doubt.

Sadly, seemingly unavoidably, off we go for the second vote in a year with only the writ-drop date and the precise trigger providing the suspense for this insane $300-million ego-stimulus package.

Given the drift of most polling, the inevitable result would seem pre-ordained as either a minority government under Conservative or Liberal rule.

But hold on a second. The Conservatives would have you believe there's a third option -- and ringing the alarm against that prospect will be the big fear factor in their campaign strategy.

Bear with me here, but they're going to warn voters to beware the Liberal coalition.

It seems preposterous at first blush.  The Liberals are under new leadership from Michael Ignatieff, who was the last and most reluctant MP to endorse last December's short-lived coalition with the New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois that would have given us, ugh, Prime Minister Stéphane Dion.  Besides, raising the coalition bogeyman will peeve Quebecers all over again as their separatist BQ option is ridiculed as unworthy of a federal role in governing.

But the way Conservatives plan to spin it, any election result that puts Mr. Ignatieff within a dozen or two seats of them will induce an opposition party partnership to seize power.

It's not as implausible as it sounds. A parliamentary do-over with Prime Minister Stephen Harper attempting a third conciliation under minority rule would seem unworkable given the partisan hostility he brings to the Commons.

So what would Mr. Ignatieff do if he came within a brass-ring grab of 24 Sussex Drive? Hell, he'd lunge for it -- with a little help from his left-leaning friends.

The Liberals would have to be within 20 seats of the Conservatives, but the prospect of a snap non-confidence vote by an opposition trio demanding the right to rule cannot be discounted.

After all, a Liberal party beaten down to 77 seats had the gall to attempt a government grab from a ruling party with 144 MPs, just two months after the last vote, a mutiny only prevented when Gov.-Gen. Michaelle Jean granted Mr. Harper an emergency adjournment of Parliament.

But she could not reject a Liberal-led coalition's pitch to govern if the alternative was the THIRD election inside of 15 months, a unimaginable scenario that would unleash a fed-up fury across the land.

"Is it fair game to say the coalition is a plausible government-in-waiting? Yes," argued one senior Conservative strategist on Wednesday. "After all, what is this election about if it's not about power?"

True enough, although in New Democrat leader Jack Layton's case, it could be a question of survival.

He's scrambling to find the escape route from a shark tank in which his party's 36 seats are the dinner menu, but finds himself trapped between a government he can't support and a prime minister who won't deal him a get-out-of-jail-free card. 

Having Mr. Layton find a way out of that mess is the only election-prevention option, which is why most parties have given up and are unleashing attack ads and war room press releases to test their campaign readiness.

Of course, the spectre of a Liberal-led coalition is far from perfect attack material. A better target would be savaging Michael Ignatieff as a visitor who has spent too much time overseas, vacations out of the country and advertises himself as a world traveller. There's undoubtedly plenty of Conservative attack ads with that drift ready to fill the airwaves.

But it makes more sense than campaigning against the Liberals as giddy tax-and-spenders, given how the Harper Conservatives have escalated spending and boosted debt at a pace unmatched in Canadian history, with no firm plan to balance the budget.

Besides, the coalition bogeyman fits with the Conservatives' other campaign strategy.  A recent Nanos poll found 55 per cent of Canadians have a positive view of minority governments because they force political antagonists to co-operate. But that perception is tainted by the view they can be inefficient.

If the government falls as expected early next month, it will be proof positive that minorities are inefficient and uncooperative and give public opinion a boost to endorse a majority mandate for somebody.

If the Conservatives can successfully fearmonger the masses into believing a Liberal coalition is the alternative to giving them total parliamentary control, Iggy's fall election gamble will look increasingly iffy.


National Post
dmartin@nationalpost.com

I agree with Martin:

• A coalition, formed after the opposition parties vote “no confidence” in a re-elected Conservative minority, is constitutionally probable; and

• A coalition is Prince Michael’s best choice IF it doesn’t include the BQ.

But, the second condition implies that the Liberals can and will grab a whole slew of seats away from the Conservatives and the NDP and the BQ. I find that highly unlikely.

Where is disagree with Martin is on Canadians. I think they really are afraid of a coalition (because they are totally uninformed about how their parliament and the parliamentary “system” work) and I believe that their ignorance and fears can be stoked and exploited to the Conservatives’ advantage.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

May's ego won't let her run against some small time neophyte. She sees herself as a dragon killer and is delusional enough to think she can succeed.

What they have to do is lock her out of the Leader's debates. She's not entitled to be there and she doesn't have Dion bleating to include her.

Is Ralph Benmurgie still her campaign manager? One can only hope.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Peripheral question:  With the jungle drums beating an election rhythm, why has Robert Fowler chosen now to break his silence with the media (albeit with hand-picked media only)?  The man is nothing if not a creature of political Ottawa; why come out now?  What is is attempting to influence?

Games within games...

Without knowing or even wanting guess at what motivates a guy as smart as Bob Fowler, I might suggest that:

• His interest in making public policy is undiminished;

• He believes that African instability is at least as big a long term threat to the American led West as is radical, fundamentalist, jihadist Islam; and

• He believes that the UN is still the “best hope” for world peace and that a UN mandate is still an essential tool for action in the world; but

• He believes that the UN is organizationally incapable of mounting and managing the sorts of complex, robust peacemaking operations that are required in the 21st century.

I emphasize: that’s what I think he might believe - can I be any more indefinite?

Does he want us out of Afghanistan? He certainly did 18 months ago when he said something like ”The opportunity costs are too high. We are spending way too much on Afghanistan and ignoring growing problems in e.g. Africa.” and ”Success, military or diplomatic is problematical. There are several “conditions” which will make success, for Canada, impossible. When any of these conditions obtain we should have the political “smarts” and will to withdraw, quickly.”

Does he want us “in” Africa? I think he does – and I am very sure he understand how complex, bloody and deadly it may be – because I suspect that he cannot see any less robust way to sort Africa out – something he thinks is a vital interest of the American led West.

Is he a Liberal (or Conservative) partisan? Is he trying to provide ammunition for Prince Michael (or for Prime Minister Harper)? No, I don’t think so, even though he is related (through his wife) to Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc.

I believe Mr. Fowler’s political instincts are as sharp as ever - and that means very sharp, indeed, but I also believe that he “bleeds” the apolitical, old time public service ethos.

I hope I am clear that I do not know what Mr. Fowler is "doing." I know I don't know and I suspect that no one in politics, the media, academe or the bureaucracy does, either.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, is more bad news for Prince Michael:

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1979270

Bank of Canada holds rates, sees quicker recovery
Holds benchmark rate at 0.25%

Paul Vieira, Financial Post
Thursday, September 10, 2009

OTTAWA -- The Bank of Canada indicated Thursday that it has become more confident about the economic recovery in this country and abroad, and added that growth in Canada in the second half of this year could exceed previous expectations.

However, the central bank warned "persistent strength" in the Canadian dollar remained a risk to growth, and it retained "considerable flexibility" through monetary policy to deal with a high-flying currency if necessary.

The upwardly revised outlook was delivered in the Bank of Canada's latest interest-rate statement, in which it, as widely expected, left its benchmark rate unchanged at 0.25% and said the rate is expected to remain at that level until June 2010, pending the outlook on inflation.

In its last statement in July, the central bank said a number of factors, from aggressive monetary and fiscal policies to improved financial conditions, were spurring an uptick in domestic demand, but added that a recovery was "nascent."

The central bank appeared more bullish about prospects in Thursday's statement.

"Recent indicators point to the start of a recovery in major economies, supported by aggressive policy stimulus and the stabilization of global financial markets," the one-page statement said.

This is also the case in Canada, the central bank said, adding things are unfolding at a faster pace than originally envisaged in its July economic outlook.

"Stimulative monetary and fiscal policies, improved financial conditions, firmer commodity prices, and a rebound in business and consumer confidence are supporting domestic demand growth in Canada," the statement said. "Combined with recent information on inventory adjustments and automotive production, this suggests GDP growth in the second half of 2009 could be stronger than the bank projected in July."

In the July outlook, the central bank, led by governor Mark Carney, said economic growth would return in the third quarter, marking an end to a short, but deep, recession. Growth of 1.3% was expected in the third quarter, followed by an expansion of 3% in the final three months of the year – for average growth of 2.15% in the second half.

Recent data indicate the makings of a turnaround, such as: growth of 0.1% in June, the first month of positive output since July 2008; the addition of 27,100 jobs in August; and a 1.8% quarter-over-quarter gain for the April-June period in personal expenditures.

"The bank appears ready to juice its own forecast of the Canadian and global economy for this year and possibly next year," said Andrew Pyle, wealth advisor and markets commentator with ScotiaMcLeod. "However, it still sees inflation risks tilted to the downside and maintained its commitment to leaving the overnight rate unchanged until the middle of next year. I wonder when that commitment starts to waver?"

The central bank's new take on the recovery stands in stark contrast to an outlook produced last week by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which said the Canadian economy would be the ugly duckling among major industrialized countries – by posting negative growth this quarter and only meagre growth in the fourth.

Despite stronger growth signs, exports have been a significant drag on the economy, leading to Canada recording contractions of 6.1% and 3.4% in the previous two quarters. And Thursday morning, Statistics Canada reported that the trade deficit in July grew to $1.43 billion after a $37-million shortfall in the previous month, as imports of energy products and machinery rose faster than exports.

The Canadian dollar, which closed Wednesday at US92.5¢, has gained considerable ground this year and could pose a threat to export-oriented companies. Most of the recent gains are due to a bigger appetite among investors for risk and an overall weakening of the U.S. currency.

The Bank of Canada said the "persistent strength" in the currency "remains a risk to growth and to the return of inflation to target."

The inflation target is 2%, and the central bank expects inflation to reach that level in the second quarter of 2011 due to an improving economy and its record-low policy rate. But a stronger dollar would mean cheaper imports, and that could keep a lid on inflation.

If needed, the central bank said it had "considerable flexibility" through monetary policy to address a robust currency, citing the potential use of so-called quantitative easing as outlined in its monetary policy update in April. This repeats warnings the central bank issued last month.

Nevertheless, analysts remain skeptical about whether the central bank would ever pursue currency intervention, particularly through quantitative easing, which involves the central bank flooding financial markets with cash through the acquisition of securities.

"If the Bank of Canada were to embark on a quantitative easing path, the entire landscape would have to significantly deteriorate," Charmaine Buskas, senior economics strategist for TD Securities, said in a note to clients this week.

Her firm expects the Canadian dollar to trade at par with the U.S. currency before the end of 2009.

If the economy is getting better faster than expected why do we need an election to change “managers?”

Even the strengthening dollar – which is bad for our exports – is political “good news” because Canadians “like” a strong dollar, because they don’t understand or care about economics.

 

[GAP]

During the second part of Mr. Fowler's interview last night he was asked about Afghanistan and basically came across as "Canada will not invest the blood and treasure enough to make a difference, because it is so different and difficult....we cannot hope to win, because others have tried and failed"

I think that pretty firmly puts him in the camp that wants to leave, but I also think ER is right in thinking that Mr. Fowler wants us in Africa, however we get there...that was evident throughout his interview....

 

[Edward Campbell]

During the second part of Mr. Fowler's interview last night he was asked about Afghanistan and basically came across as "Canada will not invest the blood and treasure enough to make a difference, because it is so different and difficult....we cannot hope to win, because others have tried and failed"

I think that pretty firmly puts him in the camp that wants to leave, but I also think ER is right in thinking that Mr. Fowler wants us in Africa, however we get there...that was evident throughout his interview....

Mr. Fowler's interest in Africa, which includes a genuine, human concern for Africans, is long standing. It was clearly evident when he was our Ambassador to the UN and, I think it went beyond the strict confines of his mandate from Primer Minister Mulroney's government. And Mr. Mulroney was very "active" on the African file.

I have heard Mr. Fowler speak on why we must "fix" Africa before it explodes in our faces. I find his reasoning very persuasive. He, not Stephen Lewis or Roméo Dallaire, really "sees" Africa in a strategic sense. Not everyone agrees with his vision but I haven't heard anyone suggest it is anything but clear and coherent.

 

[dapaterson]

I concur with the underlying motives of Mr Fowler - his interest in Africa is well known.  My question is more to do with timing.  Not "Why Africa?" but rather "Why now?"

* An interview with a generally sympathetic news outlet

* Immediately after Labour day, when the house is gearing up to sit again

* Just before the 8th anniversary of the Sept 11 attacks

* While opposition parties are promising to bring down the government

* When the question of Canada's post-2011 military commitment to Afghanistan remains opaque - and what that may mean for the ability of the CF to project to another location


Bob Fowler is not stupid; he suffers from the smartest man in the room affliction (in part, the reason others in NDHQ disliked him - he was smarter than them, could see through many of their ploys, and was not easily baffled with bullshit).  Knowing that, the question remains:  Not what is he doing, but why is he doing it at this time?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site, is another blog by Norman Spector:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/harpers-nutty-suggestion/article1281783/

Harper's nutty suggestion

Norman Spector

In a video clip obtained by the CBC, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is seen telling Conservatives in Northern Ontario that he needs a majority in the upcoming election. Otherwise, “the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois will combine and they will form a government.”

Where, you ask, might Mr. Harper have gotten this preposterous idea?

Who knows for sure? But perhaps he got it from a recent column by Chantal Hébert, in which she argues that the Liberals — sliding in yet another poll released this morning — don’t actually have to win the election in order to win the election:

“In a published interview in Le Devoir earlier this week, Michael Ignatieff once again ruled out another Liberal attempt at crafting a governing coalition with the NDP in the next Parliament. But he also left the door open to other undefined 'arrangements.'

One obvious possibility would be a two-year governing agreement, copied on the Ontario deal David Peterson struck with Bob Rae's NDP in the mid-1980s. … Paul Martin could have made overtures to Layton to try to stay in power. … Back then, though, the Bloc would almost certainly have vetoed the arrangement. … Since then, the Quebec climate has changed for the worse for the Conservatives.

Duceppe's decision to formally support a Liberal-NDP coalition led by Stéphane Dion last fall met with widespread approval in Quebec. … In the probable scenario of another four-way split in the House of Commons, winning 100 seats in the next election could be enough to put the Liberals within reach of power.”

Or maybe Mr. Harper came up with this wacko notion reading the words of a “Toronto area Liberal and former denizen of the Hill” who gave this answer to a question posed by my esteemed fellow blogger Doug Bell a few days ago:

“I asked (for the thirty millionth time)…whether he agreed with the idea that in order for the Grits to overcome the problems inherent in vote splitting on the left they needed to explore the possibility of an entente cordiale with the NDP. And that perhaps Bob Rae might be the right man for that job.

I agree. But that is a conversation for after the writs are returned.”

Wherever Mr. Harper got the crazy idea that he shared with party members in Northern Ontario, and now with us, it should be easy enough to dismiss it as being within the realm of the possible.

The CBC says it obtained the video clip from a Liberal Party source — presumably because the source thinks it will help the Liberals in the election they are poised to precipitate. It should be a no-brainer, then, for Michael Ignatieff to shut the door firmly on negotiating any Bob Rae-type accord or Stéphane Dion-like coalition — which Mr. Ignatieff signed onto last fall — after the next election. And, while we’re at it and just to be sure, how about getting the same sort of iron-clad disavowal from Mr. Layton, Mr. Duceppe and from Mr. Harper himself?

Yup! Mr. Harper has already disavowed “backroom deals” with the BQ or the Dippers. He should have no problem saying no to a post election coalition with those two parties. Prince Michael could then be pressed to do the same, much to his discomfort.

I am fairly sure that Canadians will punish anyone who brings the BQ into any sort of formal “arrangement.” The political optics are – or can easily be made to be – too bad.

About 60% (I guess) of Canadians will conclude that any sort of formal arrangement with the NDP is bad policy and they will punish anyone who makes such an arrangement.

It, eschewing “deals ” with either the Bloc or the Dippers, should be a no-brainer for the Conservatives but it may be a harder sell for that segment of the Liberal Party of Canada that is both incurably power hungry and on the socio-economic left wing of the Party.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I concur with the underlying motives of Mr Fowler - his interest in Africa is well known.  My question is more to do with timing.  Not "Why Africa?" but rather "Why now?"

* An interview with a generally sympathetic news outlet

* Immediately after Labour day, when the house is gearing up to sit again

* Just before the 8th anniversary of the Sept 11 attacks

* While opposition parties are promising to bring down the government

* When the question of Canada's post-2011 military commitment to Afghanistan remains opaque - and what that may mean for the ability of the CF to project to another location


Bob Fowler is not stupid; he suffers from the smartest man in the room affliction (in part, the reason others in NDHQ disliked him - he was smarter than them, could see through many of their ploys, and was not easily baffled with bullshit).  Knowing that, the question remains:  Not what is he doing, but why is he doing it at this time?

OK, then stripped of all the speculation in the middle, my answer remains:

1. His interest in making public policy is undiminished; and

2. Mr. Fowler’s political instincts are as sharp as ever - and that means very sharp, indeed, but I also believe that he “bleeds” the apolitical, old time public service ethos.

I can only guess that he sees now as an opportune moment – maybe before we get caught up in election fever – to get his views out in the open. And national TV is a much bigger “tool” than he has used before.

2011 is not, in policy terms, very far away.

I am prepared to bet that arguments are raging amongst the high priced help at Fort Fumble (NDHQ) and in Festung Pearson (DFAIT) about what if any Canadian military forces are to remain somewhere in Afghanistan after 2011. My guess is that Mr. Fowler would like to see as few as possible – he might want the rest to be rested, re-equipped and prepared for missions in Africa.

I think he is correct in concluding that Canadians, broadly, are unwilling to invest the blood and treasure that the Afghanistan mission needs. That means you, the CF, will not be allowed to fight and win. Perhaps it is better to come home and then try something – equally important - that might be achievable.

 

[Edward Campbell]

One more thing: Mr. Fowler knows how to “reach” politicians. He is very much at home in the corridors of power and in the business of speaking truth to power. So he must understand that, accustomed as they are to listening to smart men in grey suits speaking quietly but forcefully, politicians really “listen” to and act upon the loud, uniformed bellows of the lumpenproletariat.

Perhaps he is trying, right now, to move the herd in his direction.

 

[dapaterson]

Edward: I'd argue against any real chance for success in Africa, but can find little flaw in your logic.  It's just that, a decade ago, if anyone said "Bob Fowler will willingly talk to the media" they'd have received more than a few odd looks.

[mode set politically correct OFF]

So I guess Fowler is now Canada's answer to Kipling, calling on us to wage

The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Kipling.html

 

[GAP]

If they think Afghanistan is hard, they haven't seen anything yet if they consider going into Africa....but I'm preaching to the choir... :

 

[Edward Campbell]

Edward: I'd argue against any real chance for success in Africa, but can find little flaw in your logic.  It's just that, a decade ago, if anyone said "Bob Fowler will willingly talk to the media" they'd have received more than a few odd looks.

[mode set politically correct OFF]

So I guess Fowler is now Canada's answer to Kipling, calling on us to wage

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Kipling.html

I think his recent sojourn in academe (University of Ottawa/Centre for International Policy Studies) opened him to a more active approach. The days of “great men” enjoying a quiet retirement amongst the ”dreaming spires” are long gone. Some of the senior fellows are, I suspect, re-energized and, indeed, find a new focus through their contacts with one another and the university community – which is, my constant grumblings notwithstanding, full of bright people.

But even an active, public Bob Fowler picks each word with care. He is another of those people that Brian Mulroney so delightfully described as those “who think in complete sentences.”



Edit: corrected punctuation

 

[dapaterson]

Ah, the classics.  I still remember muffling a laugh when the-then GG, Ms Clarkson, selectively quoted Tennyson's Ulysses in a speech.  I got odd looks for my laughter; apparently, knowing classic poetry is a fading skill.

Her words to describe the CF in 2001:

And as such you are, like Ulysses in Tennyson's poem,

"One equal temper of heroic hearts
.... strong in will,
To strive, to seek, to find and not to yield."

Of course, Tennyson's words were even more appropriate unredacted:

Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

I'm sure that whichever political flack proof-read her speech and missed the underlying message was later flogged.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The campaigning for an election – the one that most Canadians believe ought not to happen at all - is well under way, according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/flaherty-to-unveil-blueprint-to-balanced-budget/article1282292/

Flaherty to unveil blueprint to balanced budget
Meant to bolster Tory credentials ahead of possible election, Finance Minister's plan would see Ottawa back into the black by 2015 without tax hikes or cuts to provincial transfers

Steven Chase

Ottawa
Thursday, Sep. 10, 2009

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will this afternoon unveil a new plan demonstrating how the Harper government would return deficit-swamped Ottawa to balanced budgets, seeking to bolster the Conservatives' fiscal stewardship credentials as an apparently inevitable fall election nears.

Mr. Flaherty, eager to craft a political legacy in which Ottawa's plunge into deficit figures less prominently, will lay out a blueprint to get back into the black in the years ahead.

The Tories will promise they can balance the budget without raising taxes or cutting transfers to the provinces and expect to get back into the black by 2015.

The Conservatives believe that swing voters accept the need for temporary deficits, but they still want evidence the government has a plan to return to balanced books. Strategists are aware that voters' opinions on how well a government manages Ottawa's money tends to spill into how they rate its stewardship of the economy.

For instance, Conservatives believe the federal sponsorship scandal that helped sink the former Liberal government undermined the managerial credibility the party had built slaying the deficit and paying down piles of federal debt.

The Conservatives' last attempt to map out a return to balanced budgets didn't fare well. In January, even as they oversaw Ottawa's slide into deficits for the first time in more than a decade, the Tories officially forecast that they expected to return to balanced budgets in just five years.

But within weeks of the January budget, the economic outlook dimmed considerably, leaving Ottawa's projections in the dust.

One of the challenges for the Finance Department is that Ottawa's tax revenue base has shrunk so much as a result of the global downturn that a fiscal rebound is even further off than expected last January.

In their new budget plan, the Tories will have to confront the fact that they cannot balance the books within four or five years by simply waiting for the economy to bounce back.

Senior economist Dale Orr has estimated that it would take Ottawa about eight years – until the 2017-2018 fiscal year – to eliminate its budget deficit if politicians did nothing but wait for revenues to grow to such an extent that they covered the annual shortfall.

Mr. Flaherty's new road map is certain to draw controversy.

Accelerating the timetable to a balanced budget would require tax increases – something the Tories have ruled out – or tough restraint measures, such as spending cuts or reductions in planned increases to future program funding.

Flaherty’s quesstimate of a balanced budget by 2015 – I presume Fiscal Year 2015/16 – appears to be roughly in line with what Kevin Page said and with which Dale Orr agreed less than two months ago – IF the plan includes some spending cuts.

The Tories have pledged not to download social spending to the provinces, as Chrétien/Martin did in the 1990s, and many, but not all, cuts to social programmes would be politically dangerous – sacred trusts and all that. So, where might they cut?

The National Portrait Gallery is a good if only very, very tiny start.

Can the defence budget be far behind?

 

[Old Sweat]

Defence is always an attractive target as it makes up a hefty chunk of discretionary spending. I wonder, however, how the projections in growth in tax revenue during a recovery match up against scaled back growth in overall spending, especially if both inflation and interest rates remain low?

The gnomes in Finance probably have tons of informed speculation fiscal forecasts. If all the players - various economic think tanks, the Parliamentary Budget Office, etc - roughly agree in their input data, then their results should not be too out of whack with one another.

 

[dapaterson]

Most economists I know spend their time either building models to predict the future or explaining after the fact why their models failed so badly.  It's not called "the dismal science" for nothing.

"Economics" is about as scientific as reading entrails, but has a better collection of journals, better parties, and slightly less exposure to decaying fecal matter.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Most economists I know spend their time either building models to predict the future or explaining after the fact why their models failed so badly.  It's not called "the dismal science" for nothing.

"Economics" is about as scientific as reading entrails, but has a better collection of journals, better parties, and slightly less exposure to decaying fecal matter.

:blotto:  I'll drink to that!  :cheers:

 

[Edward Campbell]

More, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site, on the down and dirty campaigning for the election that almost nobody, except Prince Michel, wants:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/could-have-been-pm-ignatieff-says-but-i-turned-it-down/article1282210/

Could have been PM, Ignatieff says, ‘but I turned it down'
Liberal Leader points to his decision to abandon coalition as proof he's not aiming to cut a deal with ‘separatists and socialists,' as Harper accuses him of in leaked video

Campbell Clark
Ottawa
Thursday, Sep. 10, 2009

Michael Ignatieff says the proof that he's not scheming to head a coalition government is that he rejected the prime minister's chair in January.

Stephen Harper made it clear in a surreptitiously-recorded speech to Conservative insiders last week that he will campaign for a majority government by warning that the Liberals harbour a hidden agenda to take power in a coalition backed by the NDP and Bloc Québécois.

They will try to resurrect memories of former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion's attempt last December to defeat the Prime Minister and form a coalition government with the NDP, propped up by Bloc votes.

But as proof that is not his goal, Mr. Ignatieff points to the face that after he became Liberal Leader he declined to defeat the Tories eight weeks later on their January budget, killing off the coalition.

“I could have been standing here as prime minister of Canada, but I turned it down,” he said.

NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe shake hands as then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion looks on after signing a coalition agreement on Dec. 1, 2008.

Mr. Harper is seen practicing attacks on what he claims is a hidden Liberal coalition plan in a grainy cell-phone video of a speech he gave to Conservatives in a closed-door meeting in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. The Liberals say a student recorded the speech and gave it to them, and the party delivered it to the the CBC, which broadcast it.

In it, Mr. Harper not only warns of the coalition plan, but charges the Liberals would raise taxes and appoint “left-wing ideologues” to the courts and governments boards.

“There have always been two Harpers,” Mr. Ignatieff told reporters in Montreal today. “The real Harper always comes out when he thinks he can't be heard.”

That Mr. Harper was on display in the leaked video:

“Most of all friends, I want to tell you this, and I want to tell you this frankly: It will be a choice between having a Conservative government or not having a Conservative government. And let me be clear about this: we need to win a majority in the next election campaign,” Mr. Harper said in the speech.

“I am not just saying that because we need a few more seats: you saw what happened last year. Do not be fooled for a moment. If we do not get a majority, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois will combine and they will form a government. They will deny this till they are blue in the face in an election campaign, but I guarantee it, if we do not win a majority, this country will have a Liberal government propped up by the socialists and the separatists.”

Mr. Harper has avoided direct calls for a majority since the 2004 election campaign he narrowly lost – because many Tories believed the prospect of a too-right government scared some centre and left voters back to the Liberal camp.

Mr. Harper's attempt to pin hidden hopes of leading a coalition on Mr. Ignatieff also provide the Conservative with a “wedge” that splits them from all the other parties.

But it's not clear if it will stick : the coalition was short-lived and is largely forgotten, and Mr. Ignatieff only reluctantly backed Mr. Dion's scheme, and killed the coalition once he became leader.

In his speech, Mr. Harper warns that a Liberal government propped up by the NDP and Bloc might now last long, but would do “long-term” damage to the country, favouring soft on crime policies, appointing left-wing judges, and expanding spending permanently.

Mr. Harper makes clear that it is not just coalitions he will campaign against, but that he will charge that the Liberals will raise taxes as the recession ends, while the Tories won't. The huge deficits generated by recession-era stimulus packages means either future cuts to government spending or future hikes in taxes, and Mr. Harper will promise to protect Canadians' pocketbooks.

“They have said, and I know Mr. Ignatieff is trying to change his tune today, they have said repeatedly they would raise taxes to pay for that spending, to pay for their permanent spending.”

“And that, friends, is one of the biggest single reasons this government needs to be elected: so when the recession is over, we can keep taxes going down in this country.”

Now let’s be clear: both Harper and Prince Michael lie like sidewalks.

“Taxes” is a great word; it is infinitely flexible in what it can include or exclude. Harper may promise not to raise taxes but, dollars to donuts, after the next election you are going to have less money in your pay packet, it will have gone to Ottawa as a “fee” of something.

But, Iggy appears reluctant to specifically exclude a coalition and he can expect to be whipped with that until he does.